• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

2A applies to carrying guns in cars, says Court of Appeals

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
OK, Steve. That's fine. So if I go to Colorado, I can have a loaded firearm in the vehicle. Of course, I cannot carry concealed in the State of Colorado. But what if I want to get out of the car and carry openly when I visit our son in the City and County of Denver? What if I want to carry openly when I take my grandchildren to one of their nearby parks in the City of Englewood?

Here's a hint: It wouldn't happen to you if you were carrying openly in the State of Ohio because our preemption statute covers more than just motor vehicles. :p
That's right - OTHER things would happen to you in Ohio!
 

SteveInCO

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
297
Location
El Paso County, Colorado
OK, Steve. That's fine. So if I go to Colorado, I can have a loaded firearm in the vehicle. Of course, I cannot carry concealed in the State of Colorado. But what if I want to get out of the car and carry openly when I visit our son in the City and County of Denver? What if I want to carry openly when I take my grandchildren to one of their nearby parks in the City of Englewood?

Here's a hint: It wouldn't happen to you if you were carrying openly in the State of Ohio because our preemption statute covers more than just motor vehicles. :p

Oh that's a f***ing crock too, particularly Denver, since our state constitution should scotch their ******** by any reasonable reading. However we had judges reading it, so a reasonable reading was not in the cards. Anyhow I certainly don't deny the situation you are describing is also a f***ing crock. But then I wasn't trying to compare our two states with the goal of claiming yours sucks worse than mine, I was simply pointing out something that does suck.

But since you for some reason seem to want to turn this into a "your state sucks so mine doesn't" contest (and you've done this before in another conversation we had in the past, if I recall correctly), here goes.

You claim your preemption statute is more wonderful than ours because it covers "more than just motor vehicles." That's kind of hard to assess, actually. If it covered motor vehicles PLUS some other things, then we know it covers more. But it doesn't cover motor vehicles AT ALL. Well yes it (or rather some other part of ORC) does. It positively FORBIDS carry in a motor vehicle and FORBIDS having a loaded firearm in a vehicle even in a container out of reach of anyone in the vehicle. (Unless of course you have an Ohio-recognized permit.) Pre-emption is a wonderful thing when it *prevents* someone from passing a restriction. Of course our legal system tends to presume pre-emption in the opposite direction--if the state government says "oh no you don't," generally lower governments can't say "yes, go right on ahead."

The reason I find this car thing particularly irksome is it would mess with me no matter where I went in Ohio. Here in Colorado, I can avoid parks. I can avoid government buildings. And I at least can certainly avoid the city and cesspit of Denver--though it sucks that you cannot when you come here. (Of course I can cover here should I need to go to any of these places, but that's beside the point.)

But it's pretty damn hard to avoid cars in either state. With "no carry in cars" AND "no loaded guns in cars" I have to handle my firearm repeatedly, quite possibly in plain view depending on circumstances, not just picking it up but manipulating it, introducing greater risk of an accident. There is a reason ranges want you to point a gun down range while loading it.

There is also the risk of someone seeing me do all this, and deciding to make a scene. I quite frankly don't need the hassle of dealing with someone who freaked out because I was handling a gun unnecessarily (except in the eyes of whatever idiot wrote this law), even if the cops do the right thing and blow off the complainer.

[Even though the trunk method is not required (as I thought it was until corrected), it at least has the virtue of giving you a way to do a lot of this rigamarole out of sight--at the cost of leaving you unarmed for extra time.]

And all of that is for utterly no reason other than a glaring inconsistency in your open carry state-wide statutes. One needs a concealed carry permit to do some forms of open carry. I can't get away from it except to avoid the entire state.

As I've pointed out before, all that needs to be done to fix this for the both of us is for Ohio to recognize the Colorado permit. That would actually fix BOTH of our problems as Colorado would then automatically recognize the Ohio one. Colorado is a lot more generous than Ohio in that regard. Yeah, neither of us would necessarily be OPEN carrying all the time, but we'd be carrying and that's at least 90 percent as good.

As I said before, I wasn't trying to make this a "Ohio sucks worse than Colorado because..." but you seemed to think that a valid response to my complaint was "nyah nyah well Colorado does...." You have my sympathies about what Colorado does. (We had a wrongly-decided lawsuit by someone from Washington State who was in your situation with respect to Denver.) But your complaint in no way actually devalues mine (and mine does not devalue yours), though you seem to think it does.
 

cowboy77792

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
12
I think we should all be able to carry any time without having to ask Uncle SAM for permission the only one that should not be able to have a gun or carry is felon or someone with a history of mental illness.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk
 

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
Which part of "shall not be infringed" do YOU not understand?
How many lexical definitions does "infringed" have? What does it's Latin root mean? What DO you understand about "shall not be infringed"?

Legal issues are resolved by courts, not catch phrases.
 

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
You claim your preemption statute is more wonderful than ours because it covers "more than just motor vehicles." That's kind of hard to assess, actually. If it covered motor vehicles PLUS some other things, then we know it covers more. But it doesn't cover motor vehicles AT ALL. Well yes it (or rather some other part of ORC) does. It positively FORBIDS carry in a motor vehicle and FORBIDS having a loaded firearm in a vehicle even in a container out of reach of anyone in the vehicle. (Unless of course you have an Ohio-recognized permit.) Pre-emption is a wonderful thing when it *prevents* someone from passing a restriction. Of course our legal system tends to presume pre-emption in the opposite direction--if the state government says "oh no you don't," generally lower governments can't say "yes, go right on ahead."
It's difficult to discuss this with you unless you understand the nature of a preemption statute. Perhaps you should educate yourself on Ohio's general preemption statute (R.C. 9.68), as opposed to Ohio's statute regarding firearms in motor vehicles (R.C. 2923.16), then compare them both to Colorado's motor-vehicle-specific preemption statute (C.R.S. § 18-12-105.6). Then we can discuss more than just your spite toward the City and County of Denver; we can discuss the reality that any Colorado municipality is largely free to limit (and many do limit) the open carry of firearms outside a motor vehicle. We can also discuss how a good, clear preemption statute will prevent individual municipalities from creating all sorts of different and inconsistent limitations on firearms carry, and how relying on favorable interpretations of constitutional provisions - like the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, like Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution, and like Article II, Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution - is not very productive.

I avoid ideological ranting and raving in Internet forums. It's really not good for much more than a slap on the back from like-minded individuals. I prefer to deal with the law as it exists and determine what changes to be made, and where legal pressure needs to be exerted, in order to meet our goals.

And even though MyWifeSaidYes has a warm affection for ranting, raving and novel interpretations of law, he cannot deny that my methods have been effective. :p
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done to stressed veterans and alleged abusers and the emotionally and intellectually challenged. Which part of "shall not be infringed" do YOU not understand?


Freed of all limitations, felons' RKBA are being violated every day. Most folks don't want to discuss it.

All freemen have RKBA. Simple rule? Easy to follow. ALL means ALL
 

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
Freed of all limitations, felons' RKBA are being violated every day. Most folks don't want to discuss it.

All freemen have RKBA. Simple rule? Easy to follow. ALL means ALL
When the Second Amendment was promulgated, felons were hanged or forfeited all their property and goods. They had no voting rights, even if released from prison.

How's that for a simple rule?
 

cowboy77792

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
12
I am new to. Tapatalk and I am not sure how to reply to a comment.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I was replying to werz.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk

It was still a personal insult no matter who you were replying to. I may not agree with him, but when you post a personal insult you actually strengthen his position.

I am much more concerned with him providing cites for his claims.
 
Last edited:

cowboy77792

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
12
It was not meant to be personal. But that is part of what wrong in this country everyone has thin skin.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
It was not meant to be personal. But that is part of what wrong in this country everyone has thin skin.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk

Well while I agree that thin skinned on the internet is a problem. Poking someone who has not poked you does not help your or my case. Don't get me wrong I have spent my fair share of time mocking others posts. I prefer to mock rather than insult but that is also against the site rules. Sometimes it is hard to not break the rules, but I do try to make an effort.
 

cowboy77792

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
12
It sounds to me like it might be best if I move on. I am not going to spend my time watching every word I say. Life is to short for this.

Sent from my GT-P5113 using Tapatalk
 
Top